Is Narcissism just a part of evolution?

Saralee4 · 27-09-2014 10:08pm #1

Narcissism is defined by excessive interest in or admiration of oneself and one's physical appearance.

•Psychology
extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.

•Psychoanalysis
self-centredness arising from failure to distinguish the self from external objects, either in very young babies or as a feature of mental disorder.

Apparently Narcissists lack the ability to empathise with other people and can be vindictive and manipulative towards people who disagree with them or 'injure' them by what they perceive as insult etc.

It's not known what causes narcissistic personality disorder. As with other mental disorders, the cause is likely complex. The cause may be linked to a dysfunctional childhood, such as excessive pampering, extremely high expectations, abuse or neglect.

With the rise of social media and internet interaction in the last few years, for example 'the Selfie' has been linked to narcissism and it is estimated that it is on the rise, could narcissism be a part of evolution and adaption in the world we now live rather than a defect?

It is said that narcissists do not know how to love, but could love be something that we are loosing or something that does not benefit us anymore as we evolve?

Could we be as a human race be becoming more self absorbed and obsessed with admiration and self gratitude?

Ive also heard that narcissists tend to go for high profile jobs and often make it to the top - you know that boss who was a real pain or bully right? I.e two people go for a job. The 'normal' person is truthful in their interview but the narcissist lies and exaggerates their abilities. Sometimes the narcissist will get the job because of their charm and ability to fool the interviewer.

So I suppose in terms of evolution, is to love and have empathy a downfall or more primitive than to just consider ones self and look out for ones self?

I myself have suffered or lost out because I have strong empathy for people and have given people the benefit of the doubt many times only to be proven wrong at my own expense however I will argue that I do have a lot of love in my life and I consider this to be one of the most amazing things and most important things to me. But what if through evolution we are loosing the ability or need to love?

Even the western world as a whole in general is pretty narcissistic when you think of all the suffering/poverty in other parts of the world that is unnecessary.

Black Swan · 28-09-2014 12:39am

MOD: The content of this OP does not seem to specifically address Philosophy in particular, but does appear to be a good fit for the interdisciplinary Humanities forum. Moved.

Joe1919 · 29-09-2014 4:59pm

Saralee4 wrote: »

Apparently Narcissists lack the ability to empathise with other people and can be vindictive and manipulative towards people who disagree with them or 'injure' them by what they perceive as insult etc.

On the particular point above, I have seen it argued that narcissists (in at least one respects) are less likely to be vindictive in the sense that they do not form strong enough of an attachment to people to become extremely jealous, spiteful etc. (they are too fond of themselves to be bothered).

Charles Darwin in the ‘Descent of Man ‘( Ch 5), argues that man acquired his social qualities such as love by natural selection.

They would have felt uneasy when separated from their comrades, for whom they would have felt some degree of love; they would have warned each other of danger, and have given mutual aid in attack or defence. All this implies some degree of sympathy, fidelity, and courage. Such social qualities, the paramount importance of which to the lower animals is disputed by no one, were no doubt acquired by the progenitors of man in a similar manner, namely, through natural selection, aided by inherited habit.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=175&itemID=F937.1&viewtype=side

I have two pets at home; a cat and a dog. The cat is independent and possibly could be described as narcissistic (if she was human). She shows no mercy and is even cruel to what she catches. The dog is dependent (he gets lonely on his own) and friendly and catches nothing. Why is this? It is often argued that this is because the cat is a solitary hunter, it is often more happy on its own, whereas the dogs hunt in a pack and need others for survival. (and hence has developed more social instincts).

Personally, I think that people are different; they are not all the same. We have different personality types and we probably have the potential to develop traits (such as to be more narcissist) whenever the circumstances arise or when there is some type of advantage for same.

PS. It is often argued that love is the opposite to power. My apologies for not having the time to develop this fully at present. https://www.google.ie/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=love+the+opposite+to+power

Black Swan · 30-09-2014 12:25pm

Saralee4 wrote: »

Is Narcissism just a part of evolution?

To what extent is narcissism attributed to nature (e.g., evolution, genetics, etc.) or nurture (e.g., environment, socialisation, upbringing, etc.), or a combination thereof? Sam Vaknin in Malignant Self Love debates the narcissistic personality disorder, suggesting that if such a state exists it probably results from an interaction of nature and nurture. He also cautions that culture (and those empowered to interpret culture) may be biased in such personality disorder classifications (e.g., norms, values, etc.), when narcissism in reality may have an adaptive advantage.

This makes me think of famous film and music celebrities. Are they narcissistic? Do their adoring fans expect them to be so, bigger than life; and if not, would their fans leave them? Is narcissism an adaptive advantage for celebrities, that would otherwise be classed as a personality disorder for us normal folks?

Saralee4 · 30-09-2014 1:56pm

Yes Joe, i know what you mean by this:

"On the particular point above, I have seen it argued that narcissists (in at least one respects) are less likely to be vindictive in the sense that they do not form strong enough of an attachment to people to become extremely jealous, spiteful etc. (they are too fond of themselves to be bothered)."

but if someone provides them with 'narcissistic supply' or if they feel someone has 'wronged' or hurt their ego, then they can act out in what is known as narcissistic rage. It can range from ignoring people, shunning them, verbal abuse or even physical violence.

They are not bothered particularly by people that do not provide them with narcissistic supply or do not have any interest in them.

"Charles Darwin in the ‘Descent of Man ‘( Ch 5), argues that man acquired his social qualities such as love by natural selection.

Perhaps natural selection is slowing down. Or perhaps narcissism, psychopathy and sociopathic disorders are a form of natural selection to stop people having children since our world is becoming overpopulated. Narcissists, psychopaths and sociopaths are just interested in themselves and have no empathy or love so I would imagine that they would not look after a child or decide not to have children at all.

I like the comparison of Cats and Dogs and I think that makes a lot of sense

I have heard that some victims of narcissistic abuse have been advised to get a pet cat in order to understand their abuser.

Also "PS. It is often argued that love is the opposite to power.", I hadn't thought of this before but it totally makes sense. When you love someone you would completely do anything, give up anything, even die for them. The narcissist would not do this.

I used to know a boy when I was younger, who would address everyone by their full name. Rather than say 'Hello', he would say 'oh theres John Dunne' and wink as he walked by. He was only in his early twenties at the time. It was a subtle kind of gesture but I always felt that it was kind of condescending and superior like a teacher would refer to a student or something. Kind of gives me the creeps now.

Black Swan:

"To what extent is narcissism attributed to nature (e.g., evolution, genetics, etc.) or nurture (e.g., environment, socialisation, upbringing, etc.), or a combination thereof? Sam Vaknin in Malignant Self Love debates the narcissistic personality disorder, suggesting that if such a state exists it probably results from an interaction of nature and nurture. He also cautions that culture (and those empowered to interpret culture) may be biased in such personality disorder classifications (e.g., norms, values, etc.), when narcissism in reality may have an adaptive advantage."

Perhaps my question should have also included Sociopaths and Psychopathy as well as narcissism.

Some people believe that Narcissists are almost always Sociopaths too. And the difference between Psychopaths' and Sociopaths it is believed that Psychopaths are born with the disorder while Sociopaths develop it in childhood or are susceptible to developing it.

"This makes me think of famous film and music celebrities. Are they narcissistic? Do their adoring fans expect them to be so, bigger than life; and if not, would their fans leave them? Is narcissism an adaptive advantage for celebrities, that would otherwise be classed as a personality disorder for us normal folks?"

I enjoy films and music and sometimes they have a really good message to portray or are just fun to watch or moving to listen to so I don't think all 'celebrities' have full blown narcissistic disorder. I do think that everyone likes to be admired for their achievements in some way.

But I agree and have always thought about how actors and musician's take themselves way to seriously. Some actors even refer to it as a 'craft' and when they talk about themselves in interviews, it seems like they have a belief that they are doing something really important for the world when really they are just a form of entertainment for most people. Its a talent of being able to pretend to be someone else. Its kind of like a conman that doesn't really hurt anyone.

Some 'Performers' or singers don't really show any thought behind their stuff or art as they call it. Some of them don't even write the songs and half the time its not their voice. Sometimes they are just puppets but enjoy the money and they admiration that fame brings. I suppose you could argue the same for models who just wear the clothes but then you could also say its just a young person with the opportunity to travel and make some money so that they can eventually set up a lovely family. So I don't think you can really say all models, actors and musicians are narcissistic.

Wasn't there a study though that asked children what they wanted to be when they grow up and most of them wanted to be famous. Are we as a culture turning our children into narcissists and making them think that this is what is important? Why would anyone not want to have a big house, the best clothes and all that fame brings. If that's how we reward those traits then that is what most people would aspire to be I suppose.

I just wonder if this is a part of us growing as a species and culture or declining or perhaps it has always been there for a certain amount of the population but is just more visible now.

The Corinthian · 30-09-2014 4:42pm

Saralee4 wrote: »

Some people believe that Narcissists are almost always Sociopaths too. And the difference between Psychopaths' and Sociopaths it is believed that Psychopaths are born with the disorder while Sociopaths develop it in childhood or are susceptible to developing it.

I'd been a long time since I opened a book on psychology, but no - narcissism and sociopathy can't really be compared that way and no, sociopathy and psychopathy are basically the same thing - the two terms are used interchangeably, and while there have been numerous attempts to differentiate them (such as that one is physically violent and the other not) there's no consensus on any difference.

Sociopathy / psychopathy are considered personality disorders, along with borderline, histrionic, Schizoid and even narcissistic by some accounts (I believe this was recently revised to drop narcissistic personality disorder from the list). Either way almost all of these disorders include some level of exaggerated narcissism - and I say exaggerated because everyone has some level of narcissism; it would be as unhealthy to have little or none as it is to have too much.

As such, they all tend to be marked by excessive egocentrism, which in turn impairs normal emotional responses such as empathy. Forever emotionally like children.

As for narcissism being part of evolution, of course it is. Even negative and ultimately doomed traits are part of the hit and miss nature of evolution. But is it desirable to any species? Well to a degree yes.

Consider a scenario where to save many people, a few innocents must die (something with Ebola comes to mind). A well balanced, normal individual with well developed empathy may find it impossible to make that decision, thus leading to greater numbers dying. Someone, on the other hand, with limited empathy will have no such scruples and thus, ironically, society benefits.

An interesting book on this I'd recommend is the Wisdom of Psychopaths, which explores this ironic 'benefit' to such people in society.

As long as there's not too many of them, of course.

Saralee4 · 30-09-2014 7:42pm

Thanks The Corinthian for the explanation and i will definitely give the book Wisdom of Psychopaths a read

"narcissism and sociopathy can't really be compared that way and no, sociopathy and psychopathy are basically the same thing - the two terms are used interchangeably, and while there have been numerous attempts to differentiate them (such as that one is physically violent and the other not) there's no consensus on any difference."

Yes I think sociopathy and psychopathy are basically the same thing but I have read that the difference is that psychopathy is something that they are born with where as sociopathy is something developed.

So I suppose Narcissism is somewhere on the spectrum before sociopathy and psychopathy but a lot of the traits are similar and yea if your dealing with any of them, its going to be a nightmare.

"Consider a scenario where to save many people, a few innocents must die (something with Ebola comes to mind). A well balanced, normal individual with well developed empathy may find it impossible to make that decision, thus leading to greater numbers dying. Someone, on the other hand, with limited empathy will have no such scruples and thus, ironically, society benefits"

That's a very good example.

But do you think it could possibly become the preferred way of being in our culture today and the more realistic way of adapting thus forcing it into our development?

Originally we would have lived in small groups with not so many people, a family of hunter gathers where everyone had their role but now our lives and interactions are so broad and intertwined and we have to deal and get along with a lot of people. Even for example in school, with bullies, although most of the time they are followed out of fear and not liked, they are often the popular kids, the 'stronger' kids. (maybe not the smartest but what they do has a profound effect on the people they bully which can inhibit that person to their full potential)

Or in World War 2, in the concentration camps, people adapted and were able to dehumanise people even though it made no sense at all. I really cant understand how a normal person could have done the things that they did to other people in that time but whether it was out of fear or just adaption to the situation and they rationized it by thinking they were superior to other races, it happened very quick and it is very scary to think. Where did their empathy go?

This is an interesting article in the guardian /commentisfree/2014/sep/29/neoliberalism-economic-system-ethics-personality-psychopathicsthic

"There are certain ideal characteristics needed to make a career today. The first is articulateness, the aim being to win over as many people as possible. Contact can be superficial, but since this applies to most human interaction nowadays, this won’t really be noticed.It’s important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a lot of people, you’ve got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and feel little guilt. That’s why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.On top of all this, you are flexible and impulsive, always on the lookout for new stimuli and challenges. In practice, this leads to risky behaviour, but never mind, it won’t be you who has to pick up the pieces. The source of inspiration for this list? The psychopathy checklist by Robert Hare, the best-known specialist on psychopathy today"

It is well known that people who tend to have these disorders tend to get into positions of power. In terms of career, social media and fame, what many people seem to idolise or aspire to in our times, it seems that this is the case.

Is it possible that we are creating a need for this type of personality?

diveout · 01-10-2014 7:09am

Narcissicm was on the spectrum of sociopathy, like a sub archetype. Recent DSM changed the entire language to anti social personality, so that sociopathy has absorbed it. This is a controversial change in the DSM and some professionals don't approve of it.

Diagnosis has also changed from prototype to a ala carte (overall...not just in anti-social personality disorder.)

Celebrities and performers may carry narcissistic value without having the personality disorder. One can be self absorbed without being a narcissist. It's like observing someone is well dressed and then labelling them a dandy.

Narcissists have a tape running in their head with "How dare you" motivating all interactions with anyone else. They also often display snobbish and patronizing attitudes and will lay out diagnosis as if they are professional doctors, in other words an entirely over amplified sense of their own expertise and importance, often being delusional enough to believe it while also comical enough to look down on others while they themselves lack the expertise.

Empathy is tricky and it is useless without cognition. Think of an ICU unit with limited resources.

Or ...you see a victim, you feel bad for their family, you feel bad for them, you want justice. You get justice and then you see the faces of the family of the criminal facing the death penalty and your empathy switches.

Unless you are concious of how you carry through your own empathy, it can actually be as dangerous than having none.

I'm not sure OP if you are thinking of the trait in the clinical sense or in the sense of casual value. You need to mark this out very clearly.

Saralee4 · 01-10-2014 11:55am

"Unless you are concious of how you carry through your own empathy, it can actually be as dangerous than having none."

That's a good point diveout. You do have to be careful and it can be just as damaging. You can be too empathetic with people and give people to many chances or you can not be empathetic enough when it is needed by someone close to you.

I understand that there is a difference between having narcissistic disorder and narcissistic traits (and that everyone has some of these traits to a degree).

I suppose what I am saying is that if we create a culture based on and which favours narcissism and narcissistic traits then will our clinical development eventually change to suit or become that type of personality?

diveout · 01-10-2014 12:33pm

Saralee4 wrote: »

"Unless you are concious of how you carry through your own empathy, it can actually be as dangerous than having none."

That's a good point diveout. You do have to be careful and it can be just as damaging. You can be too empathetic with people and give people to many chances or you can not be empathetic enough when it is needed by someone close to you.

I understand that there is a difference between having narcissistic disorder and narcissistic traits (and that everyone has some of these traits to a degree).

I suppose what I am saying is that if we create a culture based on and which favours narcissism and narcissistic traits then will our clinical development eventually change to suit or become that type of personality?

This is already a debate...where the question is are people presenting with the pathology or just the current developmental expectations of the culture.

The Corinthian · 01-10-2014 1:08pm

Saralee4 wrote: »

Yes I think sociopathy and psychopathy are basically the same thing but I have read that the difference is that psychopathy is something that they are born with where as sociopathy is something developed.

Most recent research points to it being a combination of both nature and nurture, although the former is difficult to gauge as the brain can develop differently over time, and I don't think any study of this has been done.

Honestly, from what I can gather, there's no difference between the two terms. Any difference that has been suggested has been to justify that there are two terms - none of which seem to have any serious acceptance AFAIK.

But do you think it could possibly become the preferred way of being in our culture today and the more realistic way of adapting thus forcing it into our development?

There's a big difference between conceding that a small number of psychopaths are useful in society, when it comes to doing those things that the rest of us cannot do, and suggesting that they should be the norm.

There's a reason that sociopathy and psychopathy are referred to as anti-social personality disorder, so no, were it to become the preferred way of being in a culture, then that culture would likely not last long.

Is it possible that we are creating a need for this type of personality?

We don't have to create the need because there will always be a need for those who can naturally do those things, make those decisions, that the rest of us cannot make. How many companies fail because the owners cannot bare to lay anyone off? Or how would the Third Reich have turned out if no one was willing to send men off to die to stop it?

Society ironically needs a small number of functioning psychopaths for this reason - with to many or none at all, it would likely fail.

diveout wrote: »

They also often display snobbish and patronizing attitudes and will lay out diagnosis as if they are professional doctors, in other words an entirely over amplified sense of their own expertise and importance, often being delusional enough to believe it while also comical enough to look down on others while they themselves lack the expertise.

Ironically, a narcissist would also say this of others they consider to be taking attention away from themselves

Torakx · 03-10-2014 4:40pm

I grew up in a cult/religion that seemed to create loads of narccisists.
And sheltered psychopaths often enough too.
The whole religious view was that they had the "truth" and everyone else was a sinner they were obliged to save. To me this is sociopathic behaviour in the group and individually it looks like narciscism to me.
People pause their natural empathy and instead replace it with religious rules and morals/value judgements.
While I was in the religion I had their morals as my guide, so I was a complete arsehole compared to now. I was actually sound enough

haha
But I now look back and see that I had a warped view of the world unconsciously. Consciously i was always empathetic(with the rules limiting my actions).

I left in my early twenties and thinking back I can see that being away from that environment helped me to regain my own morals again.
I had lost my normal morals and values, because the religious ones had top trumped them temporarily and unconsiously.
I cared for people, but also because of the religions teachings and "spirit" I learned not to care, or more precisely not to think about caring, just follow the moral rules.
In my late twenties I started researching very heavily into psychology and this migth have helped me to view myself and my actions and thoughts more realistically. I know others, like family and friends wholeft but are still displaying what seems like narcissism and over inflated ego as I had back in the day. But theyleft less recently too and no research or interest in how their mind or body functions really.

Maybe I am labeling something as narcissism that isn't....
I haven't researched this in years.
But I have seen similar behaviour in others who left the religion or were still in the religion.
A grandiose view of the self. A very defensive ego, where they can get visibly angry and turn the conversation into an arguement if you don't agree with them and express a different view to their beliefs.

I would say it's narcisistic traits for the most part and in those who were pampered as kids, it could be full blown narcissism.
I think you can learn patterns of thinking over time and in many cases replace old habits.
I think narcissism is a mode of thinking, as well as sociopathic behaviour. Psychopathic behaviour I had concluded to myself, is the way the brain formed and can't be changed. Possibly a form of autism.

Saralee4 · 09-10-2014 3:01pm

well done Torakx for getting yourself out of that situation!

Torakx · 09-10-2014 5:28pm

Thanks

It's still a work in progress lol
As can probably be seen from my posts.
But I do think all things are evolutionary, just because everything exists through evolution or the basic mechanics in the universe.
Even the perverse acts we humans do, could be considered natural to me.
And come about because of a process, so they evolve. Like psychological disorders for example. They have to be created somehow and so it evolves out of some interaction or process.
Evolution works because it makes mistakes "on purpose".
Narciscism could be one of those mistakes that will challenge us or help others survive certain situations better.
If it fails and it dies out is had no use. But I think for something to fade in evolutionary terms, is a very long process. Hundreds or thousands of years maybe?

Black Swan · 23-10-2014 10:27am

Torakx wrote: »

Evolution works because it makes mistakes "on purpose". Narciscism could be one of those mistakes that will challenge us or help others survive certain situations better. If it fails and it dies out is had no use. But I think for something to fade in evolutionary terms, is a very long process. Hundreds or thousands of years maybe?

What if narcissism was a social construction that has no more substance in terms of reality than superstitious beliefs? Could narcissism be myth, as suggested by Thomas Szasz in The Myth of Mental Illness (1961)?

Saralee4 wrote: »

Wasn't there a study though that asked children what they wanted to be when they grow up and most of them wanted to be famous.

If we were to subject narcissism to demystification, stripping away its impressive sounding DSM-IV psychiatric diagnostic label (i.e., narcissistic personality disorder), would there be anything left? For example, one of 2 forms of this DSM-IV labeled "disorder" suggests that it's a "grandiose state of mind in young adults that can be corrected by life experiences." Is this a real "disorder," or just part of the trials and tribulations of growing up?

Torakx · 23-10-2014 9:45pm

Black Swan wrote: »

What if narcissism was a social construction that has no more substance in terms of reality than superstitious beliefs? Could narcissism be myth, as suggested by Thomas Szasz in The Myth of Mental Illness (1961)?

If we were to subject narcissism to demystification, stripping away its impressive sounding DSM-IV psychiatric diagnostic label (i.e., narcissistic personality disorder), would there be anything left? For example, one of 2 forms of this DSM-IV labeled "disorder" suggests that it's a "grandiose state of mind in young adults that can be corrected by life experiences." Is this a real "disorder," or just part of the trials and tribulations of growing up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Mental_Illness
I like his thinking

I am of the same mind, to a degree.
I went a bit crazy myself back in the day when I was a victim of anti-biotic abuse and prozac etc. It caused me to change mentally and become destructive when combined with alcohol.
Those would be physical issues effecting mental functioning. In that case I would assume it to be an illness(not mental though).
Mental illness in and of itself I don't often subscribe to that seriously.
I see the DSM as a way to converse about groups of symptoms. But don't see any of these as illness, if they can't be related to physical health.

In 50-100 years if humans are still around, my resistance to authorities in general could be labeled as a mental illness, due to societies view on what is mentally healthy at any time.
I think that people first need to learn about themselves and how they function, then they can accept their own ways and control them.
I think mentally disturbed people have a certain genius because of the extreme pressure put on their mental capabilities. It forces people to work harder in certain areas and creates new avenues of thought. We need "crazy" people more than ever now. This is what I refer to as the "mistakes" in evolution, even at a social level.

It does seem to ring true that generally teenagers an have a greater view of their capabilities than is the case and not just teenagers either.
But narcicism still is a handy label to describe that set of behaviours.

Black Swan · 24-10-2014 2:53am

Torakx wrote: »

I see the DSM as a way to converse about groups of symptoms. But don't see any of these as illness, if they can't be related to physical health.

There certainly appears to be cases of psychosomatic illness; i.e., mental states that affect physical health. Viktor Frankl addressed this in Man's Search for Meaning (1946) from an emic perspective, having survived and reflected upon his WWII concentration camp experiences. Then again in saying this, I do not think that narcissism fits this paradigm.

Unfortunately the social and behavioural sciences lack the precision of measurement that exists in the natural and physical sciences. The theoretical frameworks are problematic too, and too often when such frameworks borrow theory (e.g., evolution) and related concepts from the natural and physical sciences, they often serve as metaphors for discussion purposes, but may not have rigorous, substantive support. Gareth Morgan in Images of Organization (2007) elaborates upon such metaphors used in the "soft" sciences, along with cautions as to their applications to the natural world.

Torakx · 24-10-2014 3:32am

I've only really read one book covering Freud, more by Carl Jung and he tends to be very intuitive in his thinking. Also using archetypes and symbolism in dreams.
From reading his books and anecdotes, it's hard to tell how effective he really was. But I loved reading it all the same.
Philosophy of mind I think seems more beneficial to dealing with mental "illness" than psychotherapy etc.
As it allows the person to become their own therapist and master themselves. Lately I have been thinking that getting help with problems with perception(some mental illnesses root maybe), is a short term fix.
Giving people the tools to rationalise and be aware of themselves is more preferable to me.

I'm unsure about psychosomatic illness. I think we can have our own placebo effect and possibly cause the immune system to be stressed.
Most of us could probably be hypnotized to think we have the flu and show several symptoms thatwould convince a doctor.
More so I see physical health playing a very important roll in mental health, as the body feeds the brain with nutrients and energy and any intteruption with that process, like over use of anti-biotics(destruction of our immune system) can cause serious mental illness. Which willbe reated with drugs in many cases permanently to deal with symptoms, not root problems.

With Narciscism it might be that being told you have a problem with that, may cause someone to believe it and succumb to it completely.
Especially if their condition is socially seen as a malfunction and not a strength.
Any deviation from the norm, or even being the norm has its advantages.
When I meet people with conditions or issues they are able to talk about, I often look for the strength and benefit of that condition and go from there to bring acceptance of self and a sense of power back to the individual, over themselves.
Once they have that inspiration and sense of gaining control, I see positive changes quite fast.
Alcoholism is one that has come up recently.
There is a loss of power when you feel judged as being something negative, I think.
So I made it my mission to fight the guilt that i kept hearing about drinking too much. Every time I heard how it was bad, I would remind them that however he is, is a process of habit and it's perfectly normal he would be this way.
That the guilt and self judgement will make it difficult and to just let go and be ok with being like that.
As this process went on for a month or two, the drinking got less and less. it started to become a choice instead of necessity and sometimes the choice now isn't always alcohol.

One big thing I also think is important, is changing for ourselves and not because someone else thinks we should.
That's probably where labeling people using the DSM is a bad thing.

In my case knowing my conditions or just thinking I know my conditions, has helped me feel confident because of having an explanation.
It's what I can't see that would be of more concern.
What I can see, I have a chance to deal with and use strategy to solve.

It is difficult to bring natural science to the area of congnition.
consciousness, I think, is the result of an interaction of physical parts in the brain combined.
Untill we can accurately measure those parts and predict the results, we won't have it down to a science.
FMRI has been really interesting in this area. I am curious to see what measurement tools they will come up with next.
Oh! Maybe quantum computers combined with holographic or other representations taken from MRI and FMRI could be a start to simulating and predicting results.

KomradeBishop · 25-10-2014 12:45pm

As others have mentioned, the problem with discussing this, is that the human brain is still pretty much a 'black box' as far as our understanding of how it works is concerned, so it's really hard to make any kind of definitive statements about this.

My view of narcissism (I don't know a lot about it), is that it probably triggers some kind of 'reward' response for the person who is narcissistic, similar to the way a lot of other things do (games, drugs, sports, whatever - anything addictive - this is stuff we know, physically), and that they can probably empathise with others, if they could get past the compulsive reward-seeking behaviour that is probably what perpetuates the narcissism, and can get in the way of empathetic behaviour.

After a very brief reading-up on it, it does seem that narcissism is labelled an 'addictive personality disorder' or such, so it seems to fit in perfectly with this - it's just one of a huge number of things, that can trigger an obsessive addictive/reward-response in people, so it doesn't seem that complex really.
There would be no evolutionary reason for this, it seems like it's just a normal behavioural pattern (with a reward response) - maybe seeking personal validation, if I understand it correctly - which just gets taken to an extreme with narcissistic people.

I don't think this behaviour is unique to any species either - probably a huge majority of species, have a similar 'reward/response' system, which is triggered by social cues (validation of some sort), that can be warped into an extreme/obsession.

I think the reward/response system and social cues we respond to, is 'nature' (we all have it, many species have it), but whether it gets warped into an addiction of some sort (including narcissism) is more 'nurture' - and in the type of society we live in at the moment, there is a lot of competitiveness (particularly economic) built into society, and many other pressures, such as pressure to be a fully self-sufficient individual, and pressures which put more distance between people socially (which goes against our nature, as we all need people/fulfilling-social-contact for an enjoyable life), and I think this can all play a part in 'nurturing' a society, which can have greater prevalence of extreme personality traits like this.

The Guardian article posted earlier, makes a good case on how our society nurtures this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/neoliberalism-economic-system-ethics-personality-psychopathicsthic

As for the western world being narcissisic, by ignoring suffering in other parts of the world: I don't think that is narcissism, I think people are just misled into thinking a lot of those problems are 'complex/intractible/hard-to-solve', and are not motivated into learning what it would take to solve such problems - I've learned (and I've spent years reading up on such topics), that usually the solutions to such problems are not all that complicated (they often are however, heavily obscured/obfuscated, to make them difficut to learn/find-out-about in the first place - for political reasons), those problems are almost always due to politics/power.

Off topic: It would be interesting to see a wider discussion on Carl Jung (I don't look at the Psychology forum though, maybe there've already been many), as I'm pretty skeptical of his views, as he doesn't seem to be well regarded - I wonder if there is still merit to some of his views though.

Black Swan · 25-10-2014 9:52pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Off topic: It would be interesting to see a wider discussion on Carl Jung (I don't look at the Psychology forum though, maybe there've already been many), as I'm pretty skeptical of his views, as he doesn't seem to be well regarded - I wonder if there is still merit to some of his views though.

MOD COMMENT: Such a new topic thread would be welcome in Humanities if you or another poster wanted to start one. Just remember that Humanities is interdisciplinary, so it's expected that more than just psychology will be discussed; e.g., add philosophy with psychology or culture or literary criticism or some other discipline(s), etc.

Is Narcissism just a part of evolution?

Comments